Just listened in on an interesting meeting, and the topic of Location Strategy came up. Turns out it's on hold for the moment. Here are some notes:
The "decisioning data" was bad and senior mgmt says "we've had to take a step back". That data came from PeopleSoft, and Saul was given bad info due to confusion over what a "Site" is, versus what a "Location" is. For example, somebody whose "location" is in Fargo might have their "site" assigned as Minneapolis. Or vice-versa. Or as something like "Bloomington Road", or anything. It's a mess.
It was forcefully said that "The Decision Has Been Made" to lay people off, but now they are having trouble "executing that decision". They "didn't have a Plan B", and "due to the confusion over sites versus locations we are now unable to accomplish it".
They said "the decision makers were too far removed from the impacts of their decisions". One of them said "there has already been an exodus of senior talent" and "it is hard to lay people off who have been here 25-30 years and have built up a lot of knowledge".
New strategy is to "zero in on places where there are less than 10 team members". People who work from home are not in the crosshairs at the moment, but "will be addressed later".
Another topic was that entire fiefdoms have been manufactured around performing work that "simply isn't needed". Entire groups have "run amok under the guise of providing governance". "They're not fixing problems", they're "checking boxes on forms" and "creating red tape that is keeping people from working". A lot of work being done by "CIO Groups" is "simply unnecessary".
On a personal note, I think this entire fiasco would be funny if not for the needless impact that they have already had on the lives of good people.